|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 10:44:56 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 5, 2005 10:44:56 GMT -5
Oh. I must have missed it in the Factory forum then. My bad. But since 40k tech is your specialty, I don't suppose you'd be interested in checking out my new thread about drop pods...? It's an old question, I think, but one that remains unanswered in my mind, at least. The thread might not be up when you read this, but it will be shortly
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 11:03:59 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 5, 2005 11:03:59 GMT -5
Oh. I must have missed it in the Factory forum then. My bad. Missed what? The theories and concepts where rejected, they never made it to the factory. But since 40k tech is your specialty, I don't suppose you'd be interested in checking out my new thread about drop pods...? It's an old question, I think, but one that remains unanswered in my mind, at least. Sure will. The thread might not be up when you read this, but it will be shortly I’ll keep and eye out.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 11:07:30 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 5, 2005 11:07:30 GMT -5
Missed what? The theories and concepts where rejected, they never made it to the factory. Oh. Well, are you interested in working on 40k tech that does not revolve around these theories and concepts? It was force fields and STC that was a problem, right?
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 11:27:37 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 5, 2005 11:27:37 GMT -5
Oh. Well, are you interested in working on 40k tech that does not revolve around these theories and concepts? I thought this thread was asking what people liked and that they should concentrate on what they found enjoyable? My ideas are the way I see the 40K universe, if there is an equally coherent counter theory I’m all ears, in fact I would love to hear it: but as far as I can tell there isn’t one. This is important to me because it is impossible to design without a concept, a vague concept gets you a vague design, if you want a very detailed design you will need a very detailed concept. If I just ignore areas that are covered by my theories, then what’s is left - vagueness? It was force fields and STC that was a problem, right? Two of many.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 12:06:17 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 5, 2005 12:06:17 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that everyone should do whatever they want. We still have the framework of the project to work within. So, even if your greatest interest in 40k is writing up theories about Tzeentch being the Deceiver and the Laughing God, that's not gonna fly here. No way. Same goes for your bubble theories, apparently. (I never really followed that discussion)
Does this mean that you cannot do what you like? You said; "all 40k tech interests me". Well, do your theories explain how all 40k tech works? If so, then I don't think you've presented all your theories. I don't think you need to explain Eldar shuriken catapults with bubble fields.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 13:47:40 GMT -5
Post by malika on Apr 5, 2005 13:47:40 GMT -5
I'd like to work a bit on the daemonwars, but Im a little bit inspireless right now, maybe I should watch some daemon movies or something, movies always help!
And I had an idea of a faction of Quechitans who fled Quechit after the Horus Heresy and are now sort of terrorists, trained by the Alpha Legion before the Heresy and now very suitable for guerilla/terrorist warfare.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 14:00:46 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 5, 2005 14:00:46 GMT -5
You said; "all 40k tech interests me". Well, do your theories explain how all 40k tech works? About the size of it, and as Kage says: ‘internally consistent but not for Anargo’. If you had a working understanding of how everything is fundamentally arranged in 40K and started to use this knowledge as part of your designing process, surely you can see that it will colour nearly everything you say about 40K?
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 5, 2005 16:07:40 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 5, 2005 16:07:40 GMT -5
...but as far as I can tell there isn’t one. Pardon? Well, I can see preference shading this statement, but there are a lot of counter-arguments to some of your more... erm... bizarre theories. It's just (and quite reasonably all thing considered; we all do it) prefer to see yours as the "best" or the "most suitable". Counter-arguments are seen as 'not 40k' or 'old' or simply not as 'cool'. Again, it's reasonable. I've done it myself. It's that you want to offer a re-vision of the 40k universe! I enjoy reading your theories except when you begin to argue that they are "more 40k" or "suitable" when other, more simpler approaches are entailed. (Of course, much of those 'simpler' approaches are predicated upon a single fact: the artwork and sculpture/design is Rule of Cool and, therefore, can get it wrong. Your approach seems to say, "Hey, the art is right" and create theories to make it thus... ) Then again, I have an 'internally consistent' approach to the 40k universe, for the most part, and as with Philip it does colour your interpretation. I just try and "KISS" as much as possible... Anyway, enough of that.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 6, 2005 6:03:44 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 6, 2005 6:03:44 GMT -5
Point taken Kage,
The thing is (as far as I can tell) is that I want to design 40K tech in detail right down to the schematics, which (again as far as I can tell) is an aspect of 40K that you have very little interest in, preferring the sociology side.
Seeing as we both like different aspects of 40K (and I do read your posts on government etc. even if I don’t reply - as you seem pretty good so their isn’t much to add other than ‘I like it’), in the interests of delegation, why not just put me, or one of the others with similar interests in charge of 40K tech for Anargo?
Make me an Ad-Mec.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 6, 2005 7:16:09 GMT -5
Post by CELS on Apr 6, 2005 7:16:09 GMT -5
Well, I'd be surprised if Kage wasn't interested in creating 40k tech. After all, he's one of the people that have been most active in the Factory forum, and one of the few "40k fans" that has gone to the trouble of designing Astartes Power armour. Philip, I really hope you start designing some 40k tech. Bolters, tanks, armour, starships, whatever. But I do recommend that you keep your controversial theories out of it Nobody needs to make you anything. Just do it ;D
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 6, 2005 7:55:02 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 6, 2005 7:55:02 GMT -5
Well, I'd be surprised if Kage wasn't interested in creating 40k tech. After all, he's one of the people that have been most active in the Factory forum, and one of the few "40k fans" that has gone to the trouble of designing Astartes Power armour. He didn’t design anything; he adapted and wrote an overview of power armour, that’s very different to designing a suit. Philip, I really hope you start designing some 40k tech. Bolters, tanks, armour, starships, whatever. But I do recommend that you keep your controversial theories out of it I will, but they will include my ideas, however it may not notice in the design, but my ideas will outline the logic and structure of the design. Nobody needs to make you anything. Just do it ;D Will do, the Ad-Mec thing was in reference to Anargo.
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 6, 2005 21:18:54 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 6, 2005 21:18:54 GMT -5
He didn’t design anything; he adapted and wrote an overview of power armour, that’s very different to designing a suit. "Oooh... Saucer of milk, table nine!" It is, of course, entirely correct... although it would have been nice without the shades of denegration and superiority that one can read into this! I didn't 'design' power armour from scratch because, well, it wasn't necessary at that juncture. Indeed, it still isn't overtly necessary... All that I needed was to create statistics where none were presented before, and I have done that. And, yes, it feeds back into interpretation of the 40k universe (i.e. logistics, etc.). It is the fine line between using the 40k universe as 'canon', using it as inspiration and allowing non-40k assumptions (i.e. abstractions of reality) to feed back into the universe. But then again that's all I need: the universe to work based upon abstractions of reality into a fictional world in a fairly simple process. I don't need it to be based on convoluted theories that are then used to explain everything, e.g. Drop pods/warp drives/nRobots/Artilects/etc are all "powered by Pentium's ( ) P40k Processor, now with power fields for true reality manipulation" ( this is tongue in cheek!). Or where a singular idea is used to transmogrify everything into an image of itself. But you enjoy it, so go with it! Designing 'Stuff'... Just one question. If all your designs work of your own theories, nearly every single one of which has been questioned as to the plausbility or even '40k-ness' (which is understandable, as it the natural counter argument), then how can they be represented without reference to those theories? For if the final representation is as consistent with the 'fluff', even the latest revision, as can be then what has actually been 'designed'? The journey begins and ends with itself with a minor stop at a theory that may be questionable in and of itself... Surely? Ah well... As my learned American colleagues might say, "Whatever". But let's stop talking about such things in this thread... It is about Treats (!)... Kage
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 7, 2005 9:27:25 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 7, 2005 9:27:25 GMT -5
It is, of course, entirely correct... although it would have been nice without the shades of denegration and superiority that one can read into this! I wasn’t being funny, just stating a fact. Just to clear it up, when saying ‘design’ I mean in a visual/ 3D way. Example: A person could say a house has 5 bedrooms and describe all the bits that go into the house, but that’s not the same as actually architect plans, or appliance blueprints. Its the same if some one said a door has a specific type of hinge, but that's no the same a blueprints of a hinge design. When designing marines I’m talking about ‘full blueprints’ and then making them in 3D: Marine skeleton, muscle structure, NFB under suit, exoskeleton and an armour plates in a 3D simulation. That is an order of magnitude greater in detail than a simple overview. The STC idea I posted was an overview, the start of the design process not the end. Ah well... As my learned American colleagues might say, "Whatever". I know how they must feel
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 7, 2005 18:16:42 GMT -5
Post by Kage2020 on Apr 7, 2005 18:16:42 GMT -5
I wasn’t being funny, just stating a fact. Just to clear it up, when saying ‘design’ I mean in a visual/ 3D way. If you define 'design' in such a limited sense then fine. Personally I'd prefer what you call an 'overview' (which is not a good term), since it actually tells you what it does rather than look pretty and what you took as a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment on another thread. Discussion over at this point. Back to Treats. Kage
|
|
|
Treats
Apr 9, 2005 5:36:28 GMT -5
Post by Philip on Apr 9, 2005 5:36:28 GMT -5
If you define 'design' in such a limited sense then fine. That’s just the way things are designed. Anywho, back on topic: I like designing 40K tech and I hope to design a lot of it I the future.
|
|